sense of packaging firefox' addons?

[Andrew Farris]

Lubomir Kundrak wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-02-27 at 21:35 +0100, Jakub 'Livio' Rusinek wrote:
>> hi,
>>
>> I saw Ubuntu is puting Firefox' addons to repo.
>>
>> I wonder why, while Firefox has now integrated search for addons and 
>> better addons site is planned...
>>
>> I don't think we should package extensions, but what do you think about 
>> that situation in U?
> 
> Packaging addons makes perfect sense. As much as does packaging CPAN
> modules. You get benefits of a good packaging and update system with
> that. Obvious examples are ability to put the addon into repository and
> add it to your kickstart, or stay up-to date with security fixes.

I think it only makes sense for those addons which are needed in a more secure 
environment (like for an RHEL workstation where you do not want the latest addon 
from the upstream to get loaded up at browser start, or you need to carefully 
review its compatibility before deployment), or for an addon that is closely 
related to the Fedora/RHEL desktop environment (like the Beagle integration 
addon).  It makes sense to package the beagle addon, it would not make much 
sense to me as a user for the Foxmarks bookmark sync addon to be packaged for 
instance.  It would make sense to package an addon that related to an internal 
network tool or web application.

The builtin firefox addon update system works far faster for most desktop users 
than getting a new rpm packaged, built, and shipped... the popular addons become 
available for users almost as soon as the upstream posts them to the mozilla 
addon site.  You just restart the browser and you've got a notice of update.

-- 
Andrew Farris <lordmorgul at gmail.com> www.lordmorgul.net
  gpg 0xC99B1DF3 fingerprint CDEC 6FAD BA27 40DF 707E A2E0 F0F6 E622 C99B 1DF3
No one now has, and no one will ever again get, the big picture. - Daniel Geer
----                                                                       ----